Breathtaking $95-Million Penthouse Rises 1,369 Ft Above New York City

Published 4 years ago

Like Demilked on Facebook:

The ever-changing and iconic New York City skyline can probably be called a celebrity all its own. 432 Park Avenue is the address of a new 1,396-foot skyscraper that brings yet another extraordinary change not only to the city, but to the whole Western hemisphere, as it is now the tallest condo building in this part of the world.

Designed by Rafael Viñoly, the building can only be described by the most exquisite superlatives. The residential tower is located in the center of Manhattan, on Park Avenue between 56th and 57th streets. It commands breathtaking views of everything from the Hudson to the East River, from the Bronx to Brooklyn, and from Central Park to the Atlantic Ocean. It features 96 stories with 104 units of 30,000 sq ft each with 12.5 ft ceilings, 10 x 10 ft windows, and price tags of $16,95 million to $82,5 million.

The building also features a private restaurant with an outdoor terrace, a 75 ft swimming pool with spa, a screening room/performance venue, a children’s playroom and a board room – you’d never even have to leave the building! So if you have a few spare millions in your account and no place to call home, look no further. In Viñoly’s words, it’s “a 100% New York experience.”

Living Room

Exterior view of 432 Park Avenue residential tower

Window

Living Room

Master Bath

Typical Kitchen

Breakfast Bar

Dining Room

Living Room

Master Bedroom

Dining Room

432 Park Avenue interior preview

Got wisdom to pour?

500-

4 years agoGaushallwrote:

Unique to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. It would be like living in an airplane. I would want to be more connected to the ground. Even the interior designer couldn’t come up with any other color to decorate with besides “cloud white.”

1

REPLY

4 years agomr whitewrote:

Amazing views, but the architecture is appalling- featureless, sealed tight, without soul. This altitude was an incredible opportunity to exploit open space, air, and light- yet there are no outdoor terracing areas or open spaces, and clearly none of the windows are openable. This is an absolute failure to integrate the environment into the design. So. though the residents may be able to see the city, they will be as detached from it as a traveller inside a passenger aircraft. Life will consist of breathing air conditioning 24/7, the city beneath silent and muffled, the atmosphere flat and shut in. You may as well be looking at NYC on large flatscreen TVs. Missed NYC architectural opportunity of the decade, someone really should be fired over this. An utter disaster.

0

4 years agoAnonymousreplied:

Fired?! I guess they need to see if they sell it first. When was the last time you designed something retailing for over $30m?

0

4 years agoronmanagerreplied:

I agree. The interior and exterior are the epitomy of bland. The view is the only thing going for it and it’s behind a inch of glass.
The footprint of the building is clearly quite small hence no balconies I’d guess as it would enable people to accidentally drop stuff onto pedestrians immediately below.

0

4 years agorobertoreplied:

Yes. Also, as you consider all of the aspects you feel were left behind, consider the practicality of windows that open at 1,300+ feet, let alone a usable terrace at that height. Many would be unable to stomach it in the best of conditions, let alone when winds are whipping. I think your personal taste is determining your reaction here, at least much more than a practical and realistic view of what the architect was working with and trying to accomplish. Very few billionaires are adrenaline junkies, at least in the sense that applies to wind buffeted terraces outside their living room. This design is all about maximizing effect and space, and seems to give the buyer plenty of room to work with their own outfitting. If you want street noise and input from your “real New York” move into a brownstone.

0

4 years agoronmanagerreplied:

Yes I realise that a balcony is not practical at these heights and also that the building does not have the footprint to allow for it. The thing just looks like a square. It is what it is. I guess the asking price is what I’ll be surprised is reached. All there is is the view for that daft amount of money. You could spend similar and get a lower but similarly spectacular view and also get a load more for your cash. (And not spend half your life in an elevator.) They’ll have to find several billionaire buyers with unique taste for heights and views at any price.

0

REPLY

4 years agomattwrote:

Take out the furniture and it’s a characterless white box at the top of a pile of bricks. The views are the amazing, but they’re all it has.

0

REPLY

4 years agoandrew Swrote:

$95 million for that view? I can take a $20 chair from Kmart down to my local sanitation station and have the same view.

0

REPLY

4 years agoOliviawrote:

Stunning, but a bit monochromatic, rectangular, and seems to be trying to be fancy. I’d suggest a good splash of color or some nice, appealing furniture.

0

REPLY

4 years agoAnonymouswrote:

To ask the people moaning about the design… Don’t worry, you’ll never get a chance to go in let alone buy it.

The furniture is a neutral example as they are selling the space. I’m sure whoever coughs up over 30m will have some change to put their own design in. I’m sure they’ll call on you all for advice…

0

4 years agoronmanagerreplied:

Whose moaning? Just giving an opinion on the blandness of the building. That’s what discussions are for, opinions. You seem very protective of it?

0

4 years agoAnonymousreplied:

Well, the person who said the designer should be SACKED, for one. And a lot of people are complaining about the blandness of the furnishings – which leads me to my comment, that those people rich enough to afford it will kit it out how they want.